A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Heliotropium;7522640]

The Church has the authority to settle disputes between Christian brethren regarding Christian doctrine on Faith and Morals. In Matthew 18:17

Hi Helio.I read Matt.-“if a brother shall trespass against thee”,implies one knows he has been transgressed has interpreted(judged) the matter already (that he was wronged) .If you are not heard ,grab another brother ,and finally get the whole church .It implies an individual can judge individually,that he is a king and priest. It goes onto say a another lay person ,who is also a king and priest , can judge the matter also .Finally the whole assembly, lay people and church officers , all being kings and priests ,can judge the matter .The implication is that the single individual is endowed with the spirit of Christ ,after the order of Melchisadek ,and as Luther once said I have the pope inside me (not needing the one in Rome-did he really say that ?) .Now put two believers together ,and you are a dynamic duo .Finally add everybody in the church and you have an unbreakable cord. Where do you find doctrine being settled this way ? Where does it say if my brother offends me (because let us say he does not believe in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.),correct him. What, then two lay people tell him she did , then the whole assembly tells him Mary Assumed ? No, Christ was talking of personal offenses, just like in one epistle where the apostle is appalled that Christians are taking each other to court (over offenses, not doctrine).

Christ instructs the faithful that if there is any dispute then take one or two others with you that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

No he does not.Dispute is quite different than offense.Can you include dispute ,perhaps ,but it is NOT the primary meaning of the text .It can be secondary ,but carries different criteria of testimony, from the Lord Himself. An offense is judged because the law is understood, like if I stole money out of your wallet . That is wrong. But what if one says is it really wrong, or who says stealing is wrong ? That is like a doctrinal dispute ,and the Lord Himself says “thou shalt not steal”. The individual , then the two , and finally the church hopefully quotes scripture and says," thus sayeth the Lord- thou shalt not steal". This is what happened in Jerusalem at first council and doctrinal issue .What God said (oral-to Peter in dream) ,what God did (saved the gentiles,and gave 'em the Holy Ghost), and what God wrote (Scripture, James quoted-Amos?) carried the day . Like Matthew says, if two or more are gathered in My name there am I ,as if Jesus himself testified at the council.

Then Christ says; “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the CHURCH; and if he refuses the listen even to the CHURCH, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (or as we Catholics see it as a Protestant).”–Matthew 18:17

Yes ,most churches have an excommunication doctrine.

Secondly He directs them to A Church NOT Churches

I think you are looking to much to fit our scenario today with some saying they are the only true church ,hence the others are who knows what .His words apply today in the primary meaning of the text.Generally you associate with brothers in your congregation ,and that is your church for help in the dispute/offense.If in different churches but of the same christian persuasion ,either church would do .And as you say ,if the church of either is not respected .he probably is not a brother ,and the whole scripture does not apply ,for Jesus plainly says “brother”.Jesus was in Jewish culture ,speaking to Jews ,who had local synagogues where this could be done.You would not go to a different synagogue . I think Jesus knew we would have a baptist church on one side of the street and a catholic on the other. This scripture you brought up is not nullified by that. Both churches can apply the scripture to their congregation.

Thirdly Christ couldn’t have told them to go do this if this ONE CHURCH was not a VISIBLE CHURCH!

No one is saying the church is invisible. That baptist church is quite visible.The church Polycarp says is spiritual was quite visible .Just what we would see however , is what we are trying to ascertain here by these early Fathers (I have only read Polycarp and Clement -their 4 epistles)

Therefore one could conclude that if the CHURCH was ONE, and VISIBLE then the only Church that can meet this since the time of the Apostles is the Catholic Church we have and that exists today.

Perhaps ,but so far those four epistles fit protestantism also.

The only Church in History that has claimed to possess this Authority is the Catholic Church. Also this authority was only given to his Apostles and the men they appointed after them by the laying of hands. This authority is not given to every LAYMAN and therefore the teaching of everything and the authority to instruct correctly has been given to THE CHURCHES MAGISTERIUM.

O.K. if you want to interpret that from scripture .I see it differently I do not see Polycarp nor Clement supporting that.He talks of apostles ,presbyters ,Sacred Scripture,the Church of God.Don’t see succession or exact procedures of ordination,or your version of magisterium. Does not say Church is over scripture or scripture over church.There is a subtle harmony ,beyond our debate.

 

[david_ruiz]

and prove** its origins back to Christ himself (Matt. 16:18-19).**
Just a quickie Elvis.Polycarp says we,the Church of God, are before the moon and stars/sun. Children of faith,being spiritual, go back to the Garden.and that can be proven scripturally.

 

[placido]

Why do you juxtapose incorrectly ,“evrey guy on the street” ??? Is every guy on the street born again ? I believe 1-5 % of the population is born again , but you say I say every guy on the street ???

It would be interesting to hear when and where your census to determine who is born again and is is not took place. I hope you will us a favor.

Are you trying to dramatize the difference between the priestly class and the "lowly,typical ,mundane every guy on the street lay person "? Does only the priestly class (church officers,presbyters /bishops deacons) have the gift of the Holy Spirit ? Only the apostles spoke in tongues ,and Paul did not wish for all to speak in tongues as much as he did ???

But we see tongue-speakers furiously disagreeing on doctrine … what is going on? Where is the Holy Spirit?

No one is blaming the holy Spirit .No one.I am not saying that ,nor is Polycarp .

When Holy Spirit-filled, tongue-speaking, born again believers disagree on Christian doctrine, you have to blame the “Holy Spirit”: is speaking in tongues more important than doctrine or why does the “Holy Spirit” concentrate on the non-essential while neglecting the essential?

placido

 

[placido]

Just like you are not saying the church teaches and who cares what members of the body believe.I see more of a unity in responsibility “knowing the sacred scriptures” .Jeus spoke to the people ,as does Polycarp ,that they CAN understand,without a magisterium middle man,or ursurping this sacred personal responsibilty.

I can now see you do not even read the Bible. You follow some one’s false teachings. Otherwise you would have noticed that Jesus nowhere, in the Bible, said people can understand without the magisterium. That would be a contradiction since He sent His apostles to teach (that is what the magisterim does). He said listening to the apostles is the same as listening to Christ Himself. He did not give them copies of the Bible to distribute.

Ther is a difference between assistance,teaching and formalizing a magisterium institution .

The problem is you don’t get that idea from the Bible, otherwise you would have provided me with at least one verse. You got that idea from some false teachers to whom you are listening, not from the Bible.

placido

 

[placido]

Yes ,of course ,for how is someone to believe if there is not someone to proclaim ,to preach ,to pronounce the gospel itself.

Divid, my brother, why do you mercilessly contradict yourself like that?
Here is what you said earlier:

Jeus spoke to the people ,as does Polycarp ,that they CAN understand,without a magisterium middle man,or ursurping this sacred personal responsibilty.

If you can’t you see the contradiction, then I have to start worrying.

placido

 

[placido]

I read Matt.-“if a brother shall trespass against thee”,implies one knows he has been transgressed has interpreted(judged) the matter already (that he was wronged) .If you are not heard ,grab another brother ,and finally get the whole church .It implies an individual can judge individually, that he is a king and priest. It goes onto say a another lay person ,who is also a king and priest , can judge the matter also.

David, my brother, did your teacher ever tell you that it is a serious sin to add to God’s Word? Do those bolded words appear in your bible? If not, was the Holy Spirit negligent in not inspiring the writer to include them?

placido

 

[placido]

O.K. if you want to interpret that from scripture .I see it differently I do not see Polycarp nor Clement supporting that. He talks of apostles , presbyters , Sacred Scripture, the Church of God. Don’t see succession or exact procedures of ordination, or your version of magisterium.

David, my brother, do you think you understand Polycarp better than Irenaeus, his disciple?
Here is what Polycarp’s disciple says about interpreting Scripture with the eyes of the Church:
"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."
Yeah, you mentioned Clement and here is what he wrote:
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] THROUGH US, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.
According to Clement, Jesus speaks “through us”. Can you tell me who this “us” refers to?

placido

 

[elvisman]

Just a quickie Elvis.Polycarp says we,the Church of God, are before the moon and stars/sun. Children of faith,being spiritual, go back to the Garden.and that can be proven scripturally.
My point was that every single Protestant denomination can only trace itself back to a flawed, sinful man. They cannot trace themselves back to Christ as the Catholic Church can. There is a 1500 year gap that cannot be filled.

 

[JustaServant]

Have yet to move on to other writers…to be cont Lord willing.I

Hi David, lets do just that. Let’s go back a few decades.
Compare this verse Luke wrote in Acts:

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

to this statement by Barnabus probably only a decade or so later:

"Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water…we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit." (The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11

Now if Barnabus wrote this letter around 70 to 75AD, and internal evidence suggests a date closer to 70AD, he was in perfect harmony with Luke. IOW, he wasn’t teaching anything different than what was in the book of Acts.

Compare what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

…the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1

.

to what John wrote in his Gospel just twenty years before:

John 6 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

80AD to110AD isn’t a long period of time.

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation **of your sacrifice **[Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14

Now, even more liberal scholars assert the Didache was within our 100 year framwork. Many (Catholic and Protestant) beleive it much earlier, perhaps within the lifetime of Paul himself.
We can be certain of the date of the first epistle of Clemant. Between 90 and 95AD. Look what he writes:

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those** who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices**. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 80]).

That’s around the same time John penned Revelation.

 

[elvisman]

Just a quickie Elvis.Polycarp says we,the Church of God, are before the moon and stars/sun. Children of faith,being spiritual, go back to the Garden.and that can be proven scripturally.

My point was that every single Protestant denomination can only trace itself back to a flawed, sinful man. They cannot trace themselves back to Christ as the Catholic Church can. There is a 1500 year gap that cannot be filled.

 

[jwright82]

My point was that every single Protestant denomination can only trace itself back to a flawed, sinful man. They cannot trace themselves back to Christ as the Catholic Church can. There is a 1500 year gap that cannot be filled.

I hate to say it but your argument only makes sense withen a Catholic framework, if you do not fully agree with your presupositions about the church than your point is rather moot.

 

[elvisman]

I hate to say it but your argument only makes sense withen a Catholic framework, if you do not fully agree with your presupositions about the church than your point is rather moot.

**How so? Are you gong to claim that Protestant denominations began with Christ? **If so - you certainly have your work cut out for you trying to prove it. You’d also have to do some pretty convincing historical acrobatics as well.

No - the fact is that they divorced themselves from the Church about 1500 years after the apostles and continue splintering to this day. You can’t trace your ecclesial community beyond flawed men in the 15th or 16th century.
If you can - I’d certainly like to see the evidence . . .**

 

[JustaServant]

I hate to say it but your argument only makes sense withen a Catholic framework, if you do not fully agree with your presupositions about the church than your point is rather moot.

Then why do you not deal with the quotes from the ECF in the OP? As David Ruiz has.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hate to say it but your argument only makes sense withen a Catholic framework, if you do not fully agree with your presupositions about the church than your point is rather moot.

One only needs to supply the proof? Do you happen to have it? Maybe we have been missing something you stumbled upon?

 

[david_ruiz]

It would be interesting to hear when and where your census to determine who is born again and is is not took place. I hope you will us a favor.

 

[david_ruiz]

I think every individual Protestant is technically a denomination. If there a millions of Protestants then there are millions of denominations.

O.K> I’ll start saying a million.It started with thousands ,then tens of thousands (had it up to 50,000 to go along with staunch catholic apologeticists)The more you repeat something ,the more it must be true. The best study I have seen says there are 7-8 protestant branches to catholics two or three. If you change the criteria each gets multiplied accordingly .David’ Barrett’s “World Christian Encyclopedia:A Comparative Survey of Churches in the Modern World A.D.1900-2000” is a good research on this subject.He cites 7 ecclesiastical “blocs”,within those are ecclesiastical traditions (which he cites as a tradional “denomination”. # 1-Non-Roman catholic have 4 (Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic,Old catholic,Conservative Catholic.

2 Marginal protetsants have 6 traditions, # 3- Anglican have 6, # 4-non-white indegenous have 20 traditions, # 5-Orthodox-have 19 traditions, # 6- Protetstant have 21, # 7- Roman Cathoilc have 16 traditions, Latin Rite ,latin Rite local, Latin/easternLocal , Latin/Eastern Catholic,Slovak,Coptic Ukranian ,Romanian etc…Barret also cites Evangelicalism-a smaller subset of Protetstantism (born again experience,bible based sole foundation,evangelical, conservative theology) as quite homogeneous. It’s catholic counterpart ((Rome as guiding principle of authority) has 4 major groups-Catholic Pentecostals,Christo-Pagans Latin American combine folk with traditional Amerindian paganism), Evangelical Catholics, Spiritist Catholics (Catholics active in organized spiritism)…I wish the author would address differences in doctrine more directly.I would think tradition represents some doctrinal ideosyncracies. Whatever, many divisions in churches are “traditional” also. Many use his numbers ,but fail to mention that when you apply same principles to come up with 20,000 denominations(more than half are non-protestant) ,you get many branches within catholicism also.My point is that they cite this author for protestant numbers but then do not mention what divisions catholicism is cited by author…Regardless ,if every non-catholic believer is a denomination unto himself , how do millions around the world have the same identical belief’s ? got stuff from ntrmin.org/3000denominations.htm​

placido

 

[david_ruiz]

I can now see you do not even read the Bible. You follow some one’s false teachings. Otherwise you would have noticed that Jesus nowhere, in the Bible, said people can understand without the magisterium. That would be a contradiction since He sent His apostles to teach (that is what the magisterim does). He said listening to the apostles is the same as listening to Christ Himself. He did not give them copies of the Bible to distribute.

The problem is you don’t get that idea from the Bible, otherwise you would have provided me with at least one verse. You got that idea from some false teachers to whom you are listening, not from the Bible.

placido

You are right ,I have contradicted myself for there is a sort of magisterium,and for sure there is the gift of teaching .Jesus did speak to the people as if they could understand Him directly.He had to correct the old magisterium ,which actually was hindrance to the people.He was the new magisterium.The old insisted on it’s way as authoratative ,being “One.Holy and Patriarchal” ,it’s origins back to the beginning -Abraham and Moses. Indeed what began in the spirit ,ended up in the flesh (that is in the bible-this phenomenon-which can be applied to the individual ,as well as a church /diocese (Revelations) yet ,to be scriptural ,God was faithful to his promises ,and there was always a remnant and Israel brought forth the Savior. So is the old testament a foreshadow ? Did the church start out fine and somewhere got off track ,though always a remnant remained ,until the reformation ,indeed more closeness to Magisterium of Jesus and his Word was rekindled ?..There is a type of magisterium , but I believe under a new dispensation ,different from the old testament. Scripture says he will “write the law on our heart”,and" every man will teach his neighbor". I see Polycarp having an understanding of the balance and relationship of the Holy Spirit , the individual ,the presbyter .the apostle ,and the Word , both oral and written, that is kindred to “mine” and hopefully yours.
Hopefully I have not missed any element that you think should be in there.

 

[david_ruiz]

My point was that every single Protestant denomination can only trace itself back to a flawed, sinful man. They cannot trace themselves back to Christ as the Catholic Church can. There is a 1500 year gap that cannot be filled.

Yes and know .For sure Lutheranism began in the 1500’s ,and Anglicanism and Orthodox have dates also ,as far as their "vivsible structure " .I am not sure where you would put “evangelicalism”. On the other hand, every believer , from the Garden to now could trace his faith to someone, something , “for by foolishness of preaching should men be saved” . This spiritual “tree’ is just as important to a “denominational” tree”. Furtrhermore, it is only your view of history that places itself so highly…That is why we study Fathers .I do not see Polycarp saying anything about this heirarchy, as the visible church , that the bishop of Rome was effectionately “Father” etc. In fact, he says it is spiritual ,consisting of believers , which are visible , and apostles, which are visible and presbyters, which are visible , and “letters” and Sacred Scripture, which is visible. But I understand your belief , just disagree and say your view of the Roman Catholic Church developed .

 

[david_ruiz]

David, my brother, did your teacher ever tell you that it is a serious sin to add to God’s Word? Do those bolded words appear in your bible? If not, was the Holy Spirit negligent in not inspiring the writer to include them?

placido

Oh please,you show your colors .It is not that I add (which i don’t), but that I am protestant .For when a catholic does it, you say nothing . Well perhaps you did not read # 68 by Heliotropium on Matt18:17 , where “doctrinal disputes” was put in place for a personal “trespass”. Anyways , he stated what others Catholics have said before about Jesus’s words .A lay person is certainly a brother and scripture and the Church teaches us of the priesthood of ALL believers .I apologize though ,for certainly a non lay person is also a brother,and could be included in mat 18.

 

[david_ruiz]

---

Personal interpretation apart